I'm trying to cope with OpenSSL's braindamaged nonblocking API
(my coworkers and I tend to call it the "accidental programming interface")
in a libevent application. The application handles a bidirectional
data stream and, for simplicity's sake, maintains a small static buffer
in each direction, c
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 01:45:21PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
[...]
> I see two ways to handle this. One is with very, very nasty application
> logic, and the other is to simply set two separate events with the SSL
> fd, each waiting on EV_WRITE. So when the SSL fd comes ready for write -
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 07:28:58PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 01:45:21PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> [...]
> > I see two ways to handle this. One is with very, very nasty application
> > logic, and the other is to simply set two separate events with the SSL
> >
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> The first way is what you have to do with Libevent 1.4.x and earlier;
>> Libevent only supports one _pending_ event at a time per fd/operation
>> pair. In other words, it's okay to have two events set to watch
>> EV_WRITE on the same
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > The first way is what you have to do with Libevent 1.4.x and earlier;
> > Libevent only supports one _pending_ event at a time per fd/operation
> > pair. In other words, it's okay to have two events set to watch
> > EV_WRITE on the same FD, but
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Just to clarify: I can add two events, one for EV_READ and one for
> > EV_WRITE, on the same FD, with different callbacks, and that _will_
> > work as expected?
>
> Even if that works, isn't it inefficient at the syscall level somehow?
It can be. For th
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:46:51AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> The first way is what you have to do with Libevent 1.4.x and earlier;
> >> Libevent only supports one _pending_ event at a time per fd/operation
> >> pair. ?In other words,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> > Just to clarify: I can add two events, one for EV_READ and one for
>> > EV_WRITE, on the same FD, with different callbacks, and that _will_
>> > work as expected?
>>
>> Even if that works, isn't it inefficient at the syscall level so
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:58:13AM -0700, Niels Provos wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > Just to clarify: I can add two events, one for EV_READ and one for
> > EV_WRITE, on the same FD, with different callbacks, and that _will_
> > work as expected?
>
> Yes,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 08:13:05AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> > Just to clarify: I can add two events, one for EV_READ and one for
> >> > EV_WRITE, on the same FD, with different callbacks, and that _will_
> >> > work as expected?
> >
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > Try doing it under strace and see what happens.
> > I seem to recall it caused one epoll syscall per event
> > on each time around the event loop.
>
> Ugh. That sounds like a terrible limitation of epoll. A syscall
> _per event_?
>
> Once ag
11 matches
Mail list logo
